• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Zlin Savage Norden

Nice tufted wing video (and flaps). Too bad speeds aren’t shown.


https://www.instagram.com/p/CBBTD9EBQVd/?igshid=biftgm6o40p3

Those are the latest frise ailerons they were testing as well. Roll rate looks great. I’ve never seen such smooth airflow over the entire length of the wing at such a high AOA.

In their latest video the Czech pilot said he was flying at 15 mph that day. I’m sure that’s where they are at in that slow flight portion.
 
...In their latest video the Czech pilot said he was flying at 15 mph that day. I’m sure that’s where they are at in that slow flight portion.
I wonder what type of instrumentation they are using to determine that speed? 15 mph is not very much.
 
Here’s an update from Zlin today.

“800 lbs (363 kg) Savage Norden with Rotax 915?”

“As we anticipated last February, the prototype has been reworked, to get this empty weight. And we did it.
The target was to offer to the market a lighter version of our plane to improve the STOL performances and with these main characteristics: full metal wing, retractable slats, double slotted flaps, carbon wing tips, 140 lt fuel tanks, "Rotax 915”, carbon cowling and 4 blade propeller, extended landing gear, 22” tires (in these pics we show the 29” ), soft baggage, carbon seats covered with Alcantara, carbon floorboards.
To get these results, we worked on every single detail, using as much as possible, carbon parts and also covering the fuselage with Oratex 6000. In the meantime, and with performances in mind, we have even asked to one our supplier, the propeller manufacturer Propellers E-Props, to build a larger propeller to explore better the STOL performances.
As you can see, we tried to design even a new paint scheme. The Oratex in black, is really nice, but we didn’t want to have and offer a total black plane. We tried to make something different, keeping in mind the final weight increase and painting the plane as less as possible…”

5E6CA53D-8D1D-4B80-9649-B4D6FD9A8DB4.jpeg
F37A213B-45E2-4BF9-91A1-2BA965B8E908.jpeg
DA8C338B-2271-4466-B0D8-B0F59B612B5A.jpeg12C19FAC-1DA4-472C-8125-39970A9ECC19.jpeg97AE3F91-2E52-48F7-9007-328EF9177112.jpegCEF73F6F-911F-4F59-BA29-0B2E5858E619.jpeg513F22A5-AAA3-48F8-9575-6F3D374C1535.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 5E6CA53D-8D1D-4B80-9649-B4D6FD9A8DB4.jpeg
    5E6CA53D-8D1D-4B80-9649-B4D6FD9A8DB4.jpeg
    193 KB · Views: 258
  • F37A213B-45E2-4BF9-91A1-2BA965B8E908.jpeg
    F37A213B-45E2-4BF9-91A1-2BA965B8E908.jpeg
    242.1 KB · Views: 683
  • 513F22A5-AAA3-48F8-9575-6F3D374C1535.jpeg
    513F22A5-AAA3-48F8-9575-6F3D374C1535.jpeg
    228.2 KB · Views: 179
  • DA8C338B-2271-4466-B0D8-B0F59B612B5A.jpeg
    DA8C338B-2271-4466-B0D8-B0F59B612B5A.jpeg
    201.8 KB · Views: 287
  • 12C19FAC-1DA4-472C-8125-39970A9ECC19.jpeg
    12C19FAC-1DA4-472C-8125-39970A9ECC19.jpeg
    203.9 KB · Views: 239
  • 97AE3F91-2E52-48F7-9007-328EF9177112.jpeg
    97AE3F91-2E52-48F7-9007-328EF9177112.jpeg
    125 KB · Views: 192
  • CEF73F6F-911F-4F59-BA29-0B2E5858E619.jpeg
    CEF73F6F-911F-4F59-BA29-0B2E5858E619.jpeg
    104.3 KB · Views: 344
Last edited:
What did it weigh before the rework?

I don’t know the exact number but it was around 930 pounds as it had a parachute, ACME’s, ACME stinger with the baby bushwheel, etc. I think a well optioned LSA Norden with 26” Airstreaks could come in around 850 pounds with ACME’s and a T3 tailwheel.
 
I don’t know the exact number but it was around 930 pounds as it had a parachute, ACME’s, ACME stinger with the baby bushwheel, etc. I think a well optioned LSA Norden with 26” Airstreaks could come in around 850 pounds with ACME’s and a T3 tailwheel.

Set up like that @ 850lbs is a recipe for a great performer! Hope to see it offered in kit form eventually!
 
I'm really curious to see actual weights. Knowing what an 850lb plane looks like and how few items you can have on such a plane and then seeing the Norden with all the gizmos and slats...something doesn't add up.
 
I'm really curious to see actual weights. Knowing what an 850lb plane looks like and how few items you can have on such a plane and then seeing the Norden with all the gizmos and slats...something doesn't add up.

Well everything you see in the pictures I just posted minus the 29” tires for 22” tires weighs in at 800 pounds empty. I’m figuring the 915 SLSA models will come in around 850-875 pounds as the US requires more equipment anyways and how most here will have them optioned.
 
Well then I'm impressed. It just seems that level of fit and finish and lots of instruments would weigh more but maybe they have it worked out. Is the Rotax that much lighter than a small continental?
 
The 915 iS weighs about as much as an O-200D installed at around 200 pounds and is good for 145HP to 15,000FT. They weighed the engine attached to the firewall with propeller and spinner and it weighed in at 243 pounds.

It is extremely impressive and there are many carbon fiber parts used throughout such as the cowling, floorboards, drooped tips, and a new 80” 4 blade E-PROPS propeller that only weighs 5.3 pounds! I can’t wait to see what this week brings for new testing and evaluation with this lighter empty weight.

59C57537-90B7-4037-8F04-1D06A09E55F1.jpeg
6EC234AD-D3C4-4FFB-948E-40272AC1E74B.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 6EC234AD-D3C4-4FFB-948E-40272AC1E74B.jpeg
    6EC234AD-D3C4-4FFB-948E-40272AC1E74B.jpeg
    122.9 KB · Views: 240
  • 59C57537-90B7-4037-8F04-1D06A09E55F1.jpeg
    59C57537-90B7-4037-8F04-1D06A09E55F1.jpeg
    153.8 KB · Views: 245
Anybody have one of these in the US where we can see and fly it? I didn't see these guys at Oshkosh - but I admit I wasn't looking for them.
 
I was thinking that there was going to be a Norden at Arkanstol but maybe not. Maybe Jetcat11 will chime in:p
 
Seems to me with all that ground clearance, A massive 2 blade prop would go much further in increasing the stol aspect of this plane vs trying to lighten up a plane that's already reasonably light. What are they trying to gain by the smaller disc out front? cruise speed?
 
I have read at times that 3 blade props look cooler… to me a giant 2 blade prop is more pleasing to the eye
 
I have read at times that 3 blade props look cooler… to me a giant 2 blade prop is more pleasing to the eye
An engineer who I respect told me long ago that the most efficient propeller has only one blade. Each additional blade is operating in the wake turbulence of the preceding blade. The main or perhaps only reason for more blades is to harness the horsepower from the larger engines. Of course there are other reasons more technical in nature. Also the larger the diameter, the larger the mass of air is "pushed" back creating more thrust. The diameter is limited due to clearance needs or tip speed limitations. A long slow turning propeller is the most efficient.

This one Everel, is mounted on a pivot which allows the blade to seek it's own angle depending upon the speed of rotation and load.

iu


This is a 96" propeller for a 90 horsepower Curtis Jenny which had a slow turning 8 cylinder OX-5 engine.

iu
 
Three blade props.....flew them for 30 years, now with the 2 blade Prince. Aero benefits aside, when working in the hangar, a 2 blade is more user friendly, a 3 blade always has 1 blade in the way. I have a 3 blade hanging on the wall, a spare in case I trash the Prince,
 
Efficiency aside, it seems to me that when guys are talking stol like Valdez, Texas whatever and yea haw stuff, they are looking at take off distances in the two digit (in feet) category. In that range, I've always been of the opinion that how much lift you can generate still in 'the stall', is more valuable than how much lift you can generate squirting it down the runway on thrust. By 'in the stall' I mean lift generated at a stand still.

And while I realize moving a segment or air across the wing faster creates more lift, at the lift off speed of most of these light weight buggies, it seems to me getting a wider swath of air across the wing would get you airborne sooner.

You wouldn't have to spin a 32' prop very fast to get a cub weight aircraft to levitate.

I think this becomes less important than insta thrust as the weight curve goes up. which is why there are so many Skywagon guys that really enjoy light 3 blade composite props in spite of their other short comings.

I am not an engineer, and was mostly honestly curious. Perhaps a little top end speed was the goal? Or perhaps a quieter prop? I imagine that engine is louder than that 4 blade.

Take care, Rob
 
Back
Top